peter.cosgrove

It's all just a +1 to your save. If you qualify for having it. That's it. Some units if they get it get +2, but it's Scouts and the like. The demarcation is how it effects advancing/charging/shooting. Each one kind of has it's own thing. And they specifically say hills are not terrain. you have to be wholly INSIDE terrain to gain a cover save bonus. If you can use the hill to completely block line of sight, that's workable, otherwise if they can see any portion of a model they can shoot you with no cover save bonus.

Only if the terrain is built that way. Sure, you can build it in such a manner that says "I only want infantry to get cover in this" Or you can build it "I want to make sure it's built so everything can fit inside of it." or you can take multiple pieces and put them into a perimeter and call the area inside the perimeter terrain. You can have terrain that is all completely 1" tall so no big models can get obscurement, you can even build or place them so there is no area for large models to fit into defined terrain. Or you can have a mixture of tall objects and short objects so there are places where large models could get cover One of my discussion points was specifically for pieces of terrain where, as built, nothing gets a cover save, nothing gets obscurement. In which case, why would they be on the table?

ya. it's basically "see this thing here, ok now imagine an invisible basing around it, anything on that invisible basing gets the benefit of the fortification"

Well, if you make the comparison between a completely infantry list and a completely vehicle list, if you are maneuvering through a bunch of columns, the infantry unit has the movement advantage now because the vehicles can't blow through the columns, they have to turn and pivot around each one. This is fine and as it should be. However, those same columns not only don't give the vehicles cover, they don't give the infantry cover either. On that I have to call shenanigans. Especially since what we have so far in the rules isn't so much a bias for/against vehicles/infantry, but instead a bias for (arguably) GW terrain and against home made terrain. Additionally, I feel that terrain should be fair play. There shouldn't be a table that only gives cover to only 1 type of unit and no cover to anything else.

Where does it say that? It just says "player commanding the target unit allocates the wound" and you can allocate wounds anywhere in the unit now instead of from the closest model. The only restriction I know of so far is multiple wound models you have to pull the wounds from the worst wounded first. You make your saves after you allocate the wound. It even says "The chosen model does not have to be within range or even visible to the attacking unit"

I didn't say useless, I said pointless, i/e if a piece of terrain doesn't give a cover save to ANYTHING then why is it there, what is the point of it? It has to be modified to gain better viability would be more accurate. I have never been a big fan of the "base is the terrain, not the terrain itself" school of thought. So when you look at, say, a singular baseless pillar, hill or column and the new rules it removes the ability of that singular pillar from creating a majority or all of the cover saves it used to do then as the singular pillar, hill or column as it is it is pointless. Since it doesn't have a base that defines terrain any models you put around it don't get a cover save even if they are 50% obscured. You would have to place 3 or so pillars on the table and then say the area bounded by the 3 pillars gives the terrain based cover save. Which is normal, but with the new addition of requiring the larger models to be completely inside the terrain AND a 50% obscurity it makes the placing of only 3 pillars harder to give a cover save. You would have to place enough pillars and columns around the perimeter of the baseless defined terrain to give 50% obscurity in order to be considered fair play terrain.

So, in the example of 5 models in and 5 models partially in. The attacks would have to go individually and the "player commanding" would then be required to remove the specific model the wound was allocated to. So if you claim a cover save for 1 of the 5 in cover you would have to remove THAT model.

Resolve attacks. 1. Hit Roll 2. Wound Roll Ok, first thing is, it doesn't go into wait... It does. Ok. so the rules are written so each attack is resolved one at a time. By having units with different toughness/saves you would have to designate a target. Who designates the target since you can pull wou.. wait. This means you can force someone to make an attack against your higher toughness/save model (because "the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound" but remove a wound/model from a lower toughness/save model. Nope. Because "if the result is greater than or equal to the save characteristic of the model the wound was allocated to" ok. so back to normal then, nothing to see here

So you have a Crusader squad with 5 Initiates and 5 Neophytes out in the open. Go!

wait a minute.. you make your saves before wound allocation, and you can pull from anywhere. You would have to declare the 5 cover save bonuses and roll.. wait. Holdon.

Ok fine. so, still, when you are talking about a single model non-infantry unit like a Land Raider, the Land Raider still has to be completely within, not partially, but completely within a terrain AND at least 50% obscured from the LOS of the shooter in order to gain a cover save.

Please don't take away my happy place.

THIS.. [Q: When determining whether a model benefits from cover, does the model’s entire unit need to be fully on or within terrain, or just the model making a particular saving throw? A: All of the models in a unit need to be at least partially on or within terrain if any of the models are to receive the +1 bonus to their saving throw. Note, however, that it is possible for a unit to gain the benefit of cover as it suffers casualties during the Shooting phase by removing those models that are not on, or within terrain. As soon as the last model that was not on or within terrain is slain, the rest of the unit immediately starts to receive the benefit of cover.] is COMPLETELY different than this... [If a unit is entirely on or within any terrain feature, add 1 to its models’ saving throws against shooting attacks to represent the cover received from the terrain (invulnerable saves are unaffected). Units gain no benefit from cover in the Fight phase] They didn't define "partially" so we are back to the "Toe in" cover of 7th edition. Good. You put your tank tread in, you take your tank tread out, you put your tank tread in, and you shake it all about.

Do you come to the Ordo Fanaticus Terrain Days? Where we sit around and fix/make terrain? My point is that the vast majority of our terrain is pointless. It doesn't do anything anymore. All the hills, columns, huts, boxes, etc etc. are pretty much just eye candy now. They don't do anything. Either there has to be a long discussion about how certain things are set up in terrain formations or everything needs to be static based or whatever so it does something besides just sit there and look pretty on the table. And to give non infantry a cover save have to do something like add more visually blocking stuff, or columns and height to the stuff we have.

Not finding a FAQ. They also didn't update the free download rules which you would think they would update if they FAQ'd something as important as that.

ya.. every time I've gone to play I have set/reset the terrain. And the only times it's gone to a floor judge for one of my games the other player was stacking the table one sided/cornered.

Where is the FAQ at? because it's not on the website.

How about lowering the epeen and go with, every tournament I have been to, during the terrain set up/discussion part of the match. Mainly because I don't like bare tables it's a situation that has come up before. Commented on even.

oh good. Because that was part of my entire point. What's their definition of "partially"? Are we talking the old school 50% of base or the newer "Toe in" thing?

The terrain is always placed by both players before each match. And it keeps moving until both players agree on placement/definition.

Not even partially. The entire unit has to be completely within. Vehicles and large base non infantry models the entire hull/base has to be inside the terrain.

No it doesn't. you have to be IN a piece of terrain AND 50% obscured (if you are a vehicle/monster) to gain a cover save bonus. if you aren't completely inside a piece of terrain you can't get a cover save bonus. Even if you are 50% obscured you can't get a cover save bonus unless your unit is wholly inside a piece of terrain.

Your comments are pretty confusing, because typically deployment is based on objective placement, which happens after side choice, which happens after deployment type choice. And who goes first while it used to be completely separate from the above, is now even more isolated because it's based on the comparison between your army list and theirs. Players are not required to be forced to allow the other player to stack terrain. A player that sees that will just take the pieces and put them essentially back where they belong. Any discussion will just go to the floor judge who will come along and arrange them in a mirrored 2 by 3 grid and tell the players to play on. In THIS edition, there is no reason to give up first turn, kind of the same as 6th edition but with extra sparkles because you can be tabled at the end of ANY player turn, not just the game turn. However, in older editions, going second with an alpha strike was part of the game and lists were built around it.

This isn't warmachine. The sides and first turn aren't chosen like that. In 40k both players set up the terrain before each game. A player isn't required to let the other player deliberately stack the terrain on the table. It's not a gentle process if one player is trying to pull a fast one with terrain, because the other player doesn't have to say anything when he/she takes the terrain away and puts it back into place. And since stacking the terrain inevitably leads to an argument which means grabbing a tournament judge who will come by and place 1 piece in each 2 foot section and tell the players to play on. It would be more accurate to say that putting a terrain piece in each 2 by 2 section and mirrored is an ungentlemen's agreement.

I don't think you and I are talking about the same thing.